Formal methods and automated verification of critical systems

  • Maurice H. ter Beek
  • Stefania Gnesi
  • Alexander Knapp
Introduction
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

Critical (software) systems are all around us. These systems are typically characterised by stringent dependability requirements and demand elevated levels of robustness and fault tolerance. To assure that they function as intended and provide a number of quality guarantees, formal methods and automated verification techniques and tools have been in use in the engineering of such critical systems for many years now. In this introduction to the special issue FMICS–AVoCS on “Formal Methods and Automated Verification of Critical Systems”, we outline a number of recent achievements concerning the use of formal methods and automated verification techniques and tools for the specification and analysis of critical systems from a variety of application domains. These achievements are represented by six selected papers: five were selected from the joint 21st International Workshop on Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems and 16th International Workshop on Automated Verification of Critical Systems (FMICS–AVoCS 2016), while one of them was selected after an open call for papers.

Keywords

Formal methods Automated verification Critical systems 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all authors for their contributions and the reviewers of FMICS–AVoCS 2016 and in particular those of this special issue for their reviews.

References

  1. 1.
    Woodcock, J., Larsen, P.G., Bicarregui, J., Fitzgerald, J.S.: Formal methods: Practice and experience. ACM Comput. Surv. 41(4), 19:1–19:36 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gnesi, Stefania, Margaria, Tiziana (eds.): Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems: A Survey of Applications. John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ter Beek, M.H., Clarke, D., Schaefer, I.: Editorial preface for the JLAMP special issue on formal methods for software product line engineering. J. Log. Algebraic Methods Programm. 85(1), 123–124 (2016)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ter Beek, M.H., Lisitsa, A., Nemytykh, A.P., Ravara, A.: Automated verification of programs and Web systems. J. Log. Algebraic Methods Programm. 85(5), 653–654 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ter Beek, M.H., Lafuente, A.L.: Automated specification and verification of Web-based applications. J. Log. Algebraic Methods Program. 87, 51 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Güdemann, M., Núñez, M.: Preface of the special issue on formal methods in industrial critical systems. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 19(4), 391–393 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ozay, N., Tabuada, P.: Guest editorial: special issue on formal methods in control. Discrete Event Dyn. Syst. 27(2), 205–208 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grov, G., Ireland, A.: Preface of the special issue on automated verification of critical systems (AVoCS 2015). Sci. Comput. Program. 148, 1–2 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ter Beek, M.H., Loreti, M.: Guest editorial for the special issue on formal methods for the quantitative evaluation of collective adaptive systems (FORECAST). ACM Trans. Model. Comput. Simul. 28(2), 81–84 (2018)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ter Beek, M.H., Gnesi, S., Knapp, A.: Formal methods for transport systems. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 20(3), 237–241 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Almeida, J.B., Frade, M.J., Pinto, J.S., de Sousa, S.M.: An overview of formal methods tools and techniques. In: Rigorous Software Development. Undergraduate Topics in Computer Science, pp. 15–44. Springer, London (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    ter Beek, M.H., Gnesi, S., Knapp, A. (eds.): Critical systems: formal methods and automated verification. In: Proceedings of the Joint 21st International Workshop on Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems and 16th International Workshop on Automated Verification of Critical Systems (FMICS-AVoCS 2016), volume 9933 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leupolz, J., Knapp, A., Habermaier, A., Reif, W.: Qualitative and quantitative analysis of safety-critical systems with S#. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. (2018). In this issueGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kant, G., Laarman, A., Meijer, J., van de Pol, J., Blom, S., van Dijk, T.: LTSmin: High-performance language-independent model checking. In: Baier, C, Tinelli, C (eds.) Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2015), volume 9035 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 692–707. Springer (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Pedro, M.A.., Sousa Pinto, J., Pereira, D., Pinho, L.M.: Runtime verification of autopilot systems using a fragment of MTL-\({\int }\). Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. (2018). In this issueGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chadli, M., Kim, J.H., Larsen, K.G., Legay, A., Naujokat, S., Steffen, B., Traonouez, L.-M.: High-level frameworks for the specification and verification of scheduling problems. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer (2018). In this issueGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    David, A., Larsen, K.G., Legay, A., Mikučionis, M., Poulsen, D.B.: Uppaal SMC tutorial. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 17(4), 397–415 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ge, N., Jenn, E., Breton, N., Fonteneau, Y.: Integrated formal verification of safety-critical software. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. (2018). In this issueGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Clabaut, M., Ge, N., Breton, N., Jenn, E., Delmas, R., Fonteneau, Y.: Industrial grade model checking—use cases, constraints, tools and applications. In: Proceedings of the 8th European Congress on Embedded Real Time Software and Systems (ERTS\(^2\) 2016), pp. 85–92 (2016).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huang, W.L., Peleska, J.: Model-based testing strategies and their (in)dependence on syntactic model representations. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. (2018). In this issueGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bride, H., Kouchnarenko, O., Peureux, F., Voiron, G.: Assessing SMT and CLP approaches for workflow nets verification. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. (2018). In this issueGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Z3: An efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2008), volume 4963 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 337–340. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Carlsson, M., Mildner, P.: SICStus prolog-The first 25 years. Theory Pract. Logic Program. 12(1–2), 35–66 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maurice H. ter Beek
    • 1
  • Stefania Gnesi
    • 1
  • Alexander Knapp
    • 2
  1. 1.Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell’InformazioneConsiglio Nazionale delle RicerchePisaItaly
  2. 2.Institute for Software and Systems EngineeringUniversität AugsburgAugsburgGermany

Personalised recommendations